FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Local 84, IATSE,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-265
Connecticut Development Authority,
Respondent June 14, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 2, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on August 5, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to provide to it copies of the following:
a) a September, 1993 agreement between the respondent and Ogden Entertainment Services Inc. ("Ogden") involving the operation of the Hartford Civic Center, and
b) a lease agreement between the city of Hartford and State of Connecticut concerning the Hartford Civic Center entered into in August, 1993.
3. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant withdrew that portion of the complaint concerning the lease agreement identified in paragraph 2b), above.
4. The agreement between the respondent and Ogden (hereinafter "the agreement") identified in paragraph 2a), above, is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5. The respondent claims that the agreement is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 32-11a(k), G.S.
6. The complainant claims that 32-11a(k), G.S., does not apply to the agreement under the facts of this case.
Docket #FIC 94-265 Page 2
7. Section 32-11a(k), G.S., provides in pertinent part:
All information contained in any application for financial assistance submitted to the [respondent] authority or the department, and all information obtained by the [respondent] authority or the department with respect to any person or project, including all financial, credit and proprietary information, shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (a) of section 1-19.
8. It is found that the agreement contains no sensitive financial information of Ogden; rather, it sets forth its duties and obligations of its management of public property as well as the fees the respondent agreed to pay Ogden for its services.
9. It is further found that the agreement was not a pre-existing contract supplied by Ogden to the respondent. Rather, the agreement was initially drafted as well as later revised in a joint effort between both the respondent and Ogden, which document memorialized the negotiated agreement of the two parties.
10. It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the agreement is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 32-11a(k), G.S.
11. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of the agreement to the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant free of charge a copy of the agreement identified in paragraph 2a) of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 14, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-265 Page 3
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
LOCAL 84, IATSE
c/o Joel M. Ellis, Esq.
William S. Zeman
18 North Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107-1966
CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
c/o John W. Mahoney, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission